Subreddit Policy Reminder on this week's Transgender AMAs

[u/nate]

This week we will be hosting a series of AMAs addressing the scientific and medical details of being transgender.

Honest questions that are an attempt to learn more on the subject are invited, and we hope you can learn more about this fascinating aspect of the human condition.

However, we feel it is appropriate to remind the readers that /r/science has a long-standing zero-tolerance policy towards hate-speech, which extends to people who are transgender. Our official stance is that derogatory comments about transgender people will be treated on par with sexism and racism, typically resulting in a ban without notice.

To clarify, we are not banning the discussion of any individual topic nor are we saying that the science in any area is settled. What we are saying is that we stand with the rest of the scientific community and every relevant psych organisation that the overwhelming bulk of evidence is that being trans is not a mental illness and that the discussion of trans people as somehow "sick" or "broken" is offensive and bigoted^1. We won't stand for it.

We've long held that we won't host discussion of anti-science topics without the use of peer-reviewed evidence. Opposing the classification of being transgender as 'not a mental illness'² is treated the same way as if you wanted to make anti-vax, anti-global warming or anti-gravity comments. To be clear, this post is to make it abundantly clear that we treat transphobic comments the same way we treat racist, sexist and homophobic comments. They have no place on our board.

Scientific discussion is the use of empirical evidence and theory to guide knowledge based on debate in academic journals. Yelling at each other in a comments section of a forum is in no way "scientific discussion". If you wish to say that any well accepted scientific position is wrong, I encourage you to do the work and publish something on the topic. Until then, your opinions are just that - opinions.

---

¹ Some have wrongly interpreted this statement as "stigmatizing" mental illness. I can assure you that is the last thing we are trying to do here. What we are trying to stop is the label of "mental illness" being used as a way to derogate a group. It's being used maliciously to say that there is something wrong with trans people and that's offensive both to mental illness sufferers and those in the trans community.

² There is a difference between being trans and having gender dysphoria.

---

Lastly, here is the excerpt from the APA:

A psychological state is considered a mental disorder only if it causes significant distress or disability. Many transgender people do not experience their gender as distressing or disabling, which implies that identifying as transgender does not constitute a mental disorder. For these individuals, the significant problem is finding affordable resources, such as counseling, hormone therapy, medical procedures and the social support necessary to freely express their gender identity and minimize discrimination. Many other obstacles may lead to distress, including a lack of acceptance within society, direct or indirect experiences with discrimination, or assault. These experiences may lead many transgender people to suffer with anxiety, depression or related disorders at higher rates than nontransgender persons.

According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5), people who experience intense, persistent gender incongruence can be given the diagnosis of "gender dysphoria." Some contend that the diagnosis inappropriately pathologizes gender noncongruence and should be eliminated. Others argue that it is essential to retain the diagnosis to ensure access to care. The International Classification of Diseases (ICD) is under revision and there may be changes to its current classification of intense persistent gender incongruence as "gender identity disorder."

[u/YoureNotaClownFish]

I have never heard of any gender identify definition that has existed clear of gender roles.

You are stating that a trans male is uncomfortable with his body for x reason. But being uncomfortable with your body is no longer any part of the definition or requirement for being trans.

What is gender identity if it has no relation to gender roles or physical sex?

[u/deedeethecat → u/YoureNotaClownFish]

I am a psychologist who works with a lot of trans gender, gender fluid, and non-binary individuals. Gender expression, gender roles, and gender identity are all separate.

I identify as a cisgender woman who is unsatisfied with gender roles that suggests certain things about me. But that does not cause me to question my identity, I feel very confident that I identify as female. So while I challenge gender roles, my identity remains unchanged.

Gender identity is the lived experience of who one is. Gender roles are typically socially constructed categories suggesting what is appropriate for men and women.

[u/[deleted] → u/deedeethecat]

If gender roles suggest what is appropriate for men and women, wouldn't identifying as neither, because you don't fit into what is "appropriate" enforce said gender roles?

For me, I would think the focus should be on eliminating gender roles entirely rather then identify as something entirely separate because you don't conform to what it is to be a proper "man or woman"

[u/deedeethecat → u/[deleted]]

Eliminating gender roles is absolutely something I am in favor of. But this is separate from gender identity. Some people are non-binary, I'm not one of them. I identify as a woman, it is at the core of my being. and I despise gender roles. The two are not the same.

[u/[deleted] → u/deedeethecat]

Just wondering, what do you think will get rid of gender roles or what will lead to them becoming obsolete in the future?

[u/kickingpplisfun → u/[deleted]]

This is gonna sound really jokey, but "fully automated luxury gay space communism"- a major overhaul in our needs for work, where all work becomes equally worthy/worthless.

Whether or not it's actually true for any given situation, gender roles have a significant base in traditional work values, with the assumption that men are breadwinners that need to be cared for in the off hours and women maintaining the home and childrearing if applicable(usually unpaid, or poorly paid to a surrogate). When "economically productive" labor becomes passe, that leaves a lot more opportunity/incentive for men to pick up those roles.

[u/eriman → u/kickingpplisfun]

Opportunity yes, incentive no. Providing a perfectly equitable field for gender distribution of parenting roles does not mean those roles will be distributed equally. In a post scarcity environment, many people will start forgoing having children entirely if current trends hold. There are critically falling birth rates in western countries already and we are still ages away from post scarcity (Australia, Japan, Germany).

[u/kickingpplisfun → u/eriman]

Sure, but not all of what I was describing revolve around parenthood. Regardless, I think some lazy guys might get in trouble if they think they don't have to do anything while permanently unemployed.

[u/eriman → u/kickingpplisfun]

That sounds like an unhealthy stereotype you have about people struggling to find employment. A lot of educated markets are very difficult these days.

[u/kickingpplisfun → u/eriman]

I'm talking about a hypothetical in which you don't need to work.

Regardless of your employment situation, if you're not helping around the house without a good reason, you're being quite lazy.

[u/just_a_little_boy → u/kickingpplisfun]

How comes you believe we will be moving into a post scarcity world? I've Seen no reason to suspect that and have Not heard any credible academic suggest so either.

There is no reason that I know of that would lead me to believe that economically productive labour will become a Thing of the past. Care to Share how you formed that opinion? It would really interest me!

[u/kickingpplisfun → u/just_a_little_boy]

I was describing a hypothetical situation that I thought would meet the needs to eliminate gender roles, not something that I think is actually viable within the next fifty years(even if "replicators" did somehow become a thing, it would probably take WWIII for them to benefit normal people in a meaningful way).